Docket: IMM-3510-24
Citation: 2025 FC 444
Ottawa, Ontario, March 11, 2025
PRESENT: The Honourable Mr. Justice Zinn
BETWEEN: |
FARANAK HOSSEINZADEH |
Applicant |
and |
THE MINISTER OF CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION |
Respondent |
JUDGMENT AND REASONS
[1] The Applicant, Faranak Hosseinzadeh, challenges a decision of a visa officer [the Officer] refusing her application for a study permit. The Officer’s refusal was based on three grounds: (1) inadequate financial documentation; (2) insufficient family ties outside Canada; and (3) purpose of visit inconsistent with a temporary stay. I find the decision to be reasonable and this application will be dismissed.
[2] The Applicant is a 33-year-old Iranian citizen. She has resided in Iran with her common-law partner, parents, and two siblings. She has no dependents.
[3] In 2016, the Applicant obtained a Bachelor’s degree in Electrical Engineering from Urmia University in Urmia, Iran. Since 2020, she has been employed as an Electrical Engineer at Fanavaran Net Company in Iran. Her employer has offered her a promotion to the position of Senior Telecommunication Engineer, conditional upon completing a Master’s degree in Electrical Engineering in Canada.
[4] The Applicant consequently applied for a study permit to enroll in the Maîtrise en génie électrique program at l’Université Laval, a designated learning institution in Québec, Canada. The program has an estimated annual tuition cost of $23,759.02, towards which the Applicant has paid a tuition deposit.
[5] As part of her study permit application under subsection 216(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations, SOR/2002-227 [Regulations], the Applicant submitted a letter of acceptance from Université Laval, a Certificat d’acceptation du Québec [CAQ], and the following financial documentation:
1)A bank statement from Bank Melli Iran dated June 9, 2022, showing an equivalent balance of approximately $95,791.00;
2)Evidence of a wire transfer of $75,763.00 to the Applicant’s aunt, who is a Canadian citizen, on June 21, 2022, designated for the Applicant’s “tuition fee and life [e]xpenses in Canada;”
3)A letter from the Applicant’s aunt confirming her intention to return the transferred amount upon the Applicant’s arrival;
4)Bank statements from the aunt’s TD Bank account, showing the deposit and subsequent account activity over a four-month period from August 2, 2023, to November 29, 2023;
5)Employment documentation from Fanavaran Net Company; and
6)Documentation of property ownership in Iran.
[6] On January 24, 2024, the Officer rendered a decision refusing the Applicant’s study permit application under paragraph 216(1)(b) of the Regulations, concluding that the Applicant had not established that she would leave Canada at the end of her authorized stay as required.
[7] The decision is documented in the refusal letter and the Global Case Management System [GCMS] notes, with the substantive reasoning primarily outlined in the latter:
I have reviewed the application. I have considered the following factors in my decision. The applicant’s financial situation does not demonstrate that the funds would be sufficient or available. Bank statement provided did not include banking transactions to demonstrate the history of funds accumulation and the availability of these funds. In the absence of satisfactory documentation showing the source and availability of these funds, I am not satisfied the applicant has sufficient funds. Evidence of available funds associated with assets such as a vehicle, rental properties, or potential income, have not been included in the calculation of available funds. I note that the applicant's funds come from multiple sources including immediate and extended family members. Limited evidence provided concerning history, source and availability of these funds. I am not satisfied with the applicant’s stated family ties as sufficiently strong (or documented) to warrant a return to Iran. I note that the applicant is in a common-law relationship and no dependents. The purpose of the applicant’s visit to Canada is not consistent with a temporary stay given the details provided in the application. No CAQ provided. Weighing the factors in this application, I am not satisfied that the applicant will depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for their stay. For the reasons above, I have refused this application.
[8] The GCMS notes show that the Officer refused the application for two main reasons: financial insufficiency and weak family ties outside Canada. For financial insufficiency, the Officer found that there was no banking transaction history demonstrating the accumulation and availability of funds, nor was there satisfactory documentation verifying their source. Additionally, the Officer noted that available funds linked to assets, such as a vehicle, rental properties, or potential income, had not been included in the financial assessment. There was also limited evidence regarding the history, source, and availability of funds that the Applicant claimed to have received from multiple sources, including immediate and extended family members.
[9] With respect to family ties, the Officer acknowledged the Applicant’s common-law relationship but concluded that it was not sufficiently strong or well-documented to establish a compelling reason for the applicant to return to Iran. The lack of significant family connections outside Canada, combined with financial concerns, raised doubts about the Applicant’s intention to leave Canada at the end of the authorized stay.
[10] After weighing these factors collectively, the Officer concluded there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the Applicant would depart Canada at the end of the period authorized for her stay.
[11] This judicial review requires me to assess both procedural fairness and the reasonableness of the Officer’s decision. The procedural fairness issue is whether the Officer breached the duty by failing to give the Applicant an opportunity to address perceived deficiencies in the financial documentation. The reasonableness issue concerns whether the Officer’s decision is justified and intelligible considering the evidence regarding the Applicant’s financial documentation and family ties outside Canada.
[12] The approach when reviewing procedural fairness resembles the correctness standard of review and asks “whether the procedure was fair having regard to all of the circumstances”
: Canadian Pacific Railway Company v Canada (Attorney General), 2018 FCA 69 [Canadian Pacific] at para 54; Heiltsuk Horizon Maritime Services Ltd v Atlantic Towing Limited, 2021 FCA 26 at para 107. The goal of the procedural fairness review should always be investigating “the ultimate question [of] whether the applicant knew the case to meet and had a full and fair chance to respond”
: Canadian Pacific at para 56.
[13] I agree with the parties that otherwise the Officer’s decision is reviewable on the standard of reasonableness, as articulated by the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration) v Vavilov, 2019 SCC 65 [Vavilov].
[14] In the context of decisions made by visa officers, the reasons need not be extensive for the decision to be reasonable: Vavilov at paras 91 and 128; Kumar v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 81 at para 21; Hajiyeva v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 71 at para 6 [Hajiyeva]. This is in light of the “enormous pressures [visa officers] face to produce a large volume of decisions every day”
: Patel v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2020 FC 672 at para 10. Further, visa officers are afforded considerable deference, given the level of expertise they bring to these matters: Vavilov at para 93; Hajiyeva at para 4; Solopova v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2016 FC 690 at para 12. The onus is on the applicant who seeks a study permit to satisfy a visa officer that they meet the requirements outlined in the Regulations.
[15] While subsections 30(1) and (1.1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, SC 2001, c 27 [the Act], establish the statutory framework for the issuance of study permits, the specific requirements are set out in the Regulations. Subsection 216(1) of the Regulations outlines the foundational criteria for study permit eligibility:
Study permits
|
Permis d’études
|
216 (1) Subject to subsections (2) and (3), an officer shall issue a study permit to a foreign national if, following an examination, it is established that the foreign national
|
216 (1) Sous réserve des paragraphes (2) et (3), l’agent délivre un permis d’études à l’étranger si, à l’issue d’un contrôle, les éléments suivants sont établis :
|
(a) applied for it in accordance with this Part;
|
a) l’étranger a demandé un permis d’études conformément à la présente partie;
|
(b) will leave Canada by the end of the period authorized for their stay under Division 2 of Part 9;
|
b) il quittera le Canada à la fin de la période de séjour qui lui est applicable au titre de la section 2 de la partie 9;
|
(c) meets the requirements of this Part;
|
c) il remplit les exigences prévues à la présente partie;
|
(d) meets the requirements of subsections 30(2) and (3), if they must submit to a medical examination under paragraph 16(2)(b) of the Act; and
|
d) s’il est tenu de se soumettre à une visite médicale en application du paragraphe 16(2) de la Loi, il satisfait aux exigences prévues aux paragraphes 30(2) et (3);
|
(e) has been accepted to undertake a course or program of study at a designated learning institution and, in the case of a designated learning institution that is a post-secondary institution, that designated learning institution has provided the confirmation referred to in paragraph 222.1(1)(a) to the Minister in accordance with that paragraph, subject to any extension granted under subsection 222.1(2).
|
e) il a été admis à un cours ou à un programme d’études offert par un établissement d’enseignement désigné et, dans le cas d’un établissement d’enseignement désigné postsecondaire, ce dernier a fourni au ministre la confirmation prévue à l’alinéa 222.1(1)a), conformément aux modalités qui y sont prévues, sous réserve de toute extension accordée en vertu du paragraphe 222.1(2).
|
[16] Particularly relevant to this case are the financial requirements set out in section 220 of the Regulations:
Financial resources
|
Ressources financières
|
220 An officer shall not issue a study permit to a foreign national, other than one described in paragraph 215(1)(d) or (e), unless they have sufficient and available financial resources, without working in Canada, to
|
220 À l’exception des personnes visées aux sous-alinéas 215(1)d) ou e), l’agent ne délivre pas de permis d’études à l’étranger à moins que celui-ci ne dispose, sans qu’il lui soit nécessaire d’exercer un emploi au Canada, de ressources financières suffisantes pour :
|
(a) pay the tuition fees for the course or program of studies that they intend to pursue;
|
a) acquitter les frais de scolarité des cours qu’il a l’intention de suivre;
|
(b) maintain themself and any family members who are accompanying them during their proposed period of study; and
|
b) subvenir à ses propres besoins et à ceux des membres de sa famille qui l’accompagnent durant ses études;
|
(c) pay the costs of transporting themself and the family members referred to in paragraph (b) to and from Canada.
|
c) acquitter les frais de transport pour lui-même et les membres de sa famille visés à l’alinéa b) pour venir au Canada et en repartir.
|
[17] Beyond the statutory and regulatory provisions, the policy document of Immigration Canada’s Study Permit Ankara Visa Office Instructions IMM 5816 E [Ankara Instructions] also asks for the following proof of funds on page one:
Proof of funds to cover all your expenses:
• Copies of bank statements or bank book covering the past 6 months.
• Proof of assets such as real estate property, investments or other forms of income.
• If a person or organization outside Canada is funding your studies: detailed explanation letter and proof of financial capacity of that person or organization (employment letter, bank statements, proof of real estate property, etc.).
• If host in Canada will be funding your expenses: detailed explanation letter from your host indicating how you are related; their proof of income such as: employment letter, bank statements, the most recent copy of a Notice of Assessment from Revenue Canada or T4; and proof of their status in Canada (citizenship, permanent resident, valid authorization or permit holder, etc.).
[emphasis added]
[18] This Court’s jurisprudence on financial requirements for study permit applications consistently holds that applicants must provide not only a sufficient numerical snapshot of their funds but also a continuous transaction history over the required period. In Aghvamiamoli v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2023 FC 1613 [Aghvamiamoli], the Court held at paragraphs 29–30 that a lump-sum deposit, without supporting transaction records, fails to meet the evidentiary standard under section 220 of the Regulations. Justice Régimbald underscored that applicants bear the burden of proving the source, origin, nature, and stability of their funds through clear documentation. Similarly, in Mohebban v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 819 [Mohebban], the absence of detailed bank statements showing regular financial activity was alone decisive in the officer’s refusal, which the Court upheld as reasonable at paragraphs 29 and 31. In Mohammadhosseini v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 848 [Mohammadhosseini], the Court explained at paragraphs 26–30 that property deeds alone, without supporting evidence such as rental income or detailed banking records, fail to establish ongoing financial stability. These cases confirm that under section 220 of the Regulations, an applicant’s failure to provide a comprehensive and verifiable financial history over the required period can independently justify a study permit refusal, regardless of other factors such as family ties or the proposed study plan.
[19] The Applicant argues that the Officer’s skepticism regarding the authenticity or credibility of the financial evidence, without providing a rationale for such doubts or offering an opportunity to respond, constitutes a breach of procedural fairness. The Applicant contends that once the credibility of evidence is questioned, heightened procedural obligations are triggered: Obasi v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 746. The Applicant further refers to the Respondent’s own processing manual, which suggests that an interview should be conducted when there are concerns about an applicant’s reasons for seeking entry to Canada.
[20] I am not persuaded. Simply put, I find no evidence that the Officer questioned the credibility or authenticity of the documents provided. Rather, the Officer’s concerns related to the sufficiency and completeness of the financial documentation. Specifically, the Officer identified deficiencies such as the absence of a banking transaction history demonstrating the accumulation of funds, a lack of documentation verifying the source of funds, and insufficient evidence linking available funds to assets. The only document reflecting financial transactions covers a mere four-month period, failing to meet the Ankara Instructions’ requirement of “[c]opies of bank statements or bank book covering the past 6 months.”
[21] These concerns clearly pertain to evidentiary sufficiency rather than credibility. The heightened procedural obligations the Applicant relies on are not engaged. As established in Sani v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 396 at paragraphs 36–38, study permit applications attract a low level of procedural fairness. Officers are not required to give applicants an opportunity to address concerns arising directly from their failure to meet statutory requirements, including the demonstration of sufficient financial resources.
[22] Finally, the Applicant’s reliance on the processing manual does not help her. The manual’s guidance on conducting interviews applies when there are doubts about an applicant’s intentions, not when an applicant has simply failed to meet basic documentary requirements.
[23] The Applicant’s primary argument concerns the Officer’s assessment of financial sufficiency. The Applicant contends that the Officer failed to properly consider substantial financial evidence, including a bank statement showing approximately $95,791, a transfer of $75,763 to a Canadian trustee, and documentation of property ownership in Iran.
[24] The Applicant’s position is not supported by the Regulations or jurisprudence of this Court. As outlined in the Legal Framework section of these Reasons, section 220 of the Regulations states that an officer shall not issue a study permit unless satisfied that the foreign national has “sufficient and available”
financial resources to cover tuition fees, transportation costs, and living expenses for the duration of their studies. The surveyed three cases of Aghvamiamoli, Mohebban, and Mohammadhosseini all demonstrate that financial sufficiency cannot be determined solely on a numerical snapshot of funds at a single point in time. More importantly, the absence of evidence demonstrating financial flow over time can alone justify a refusal.
[25] In the present case, the Applicant submitted a bank statement showing a balance at a single point in time but failed to provide the required six-month transaction history to demonstrate the accumulation, stability, and ongoing availability of funds. Additionally, while the Applicant transferred $75,763 to a trustee in Canada, the trustee’s account showed concerning fluctuations, with balances frequently falling below the transferred amount. The transferred $75,763 also appears to fall short of the estimated total cost of $90,000 for the two-year program. It was therefore open to the Officer to conclude that this raises legitimate concerns regarding the continued availability of these funds for the Applicant’s education.
[26] The Applicant’s documentation of property ownership in Iran, while relevant evidence, does not compensate for the lack of a sufficient banking history. As held in Moradian v Canada (Citizenship and Immigration), 2024 FC 1343 at paragraph 9, an officer may reasonably exclude non-liquid assets from the financial sufficiency assessment when determining whether an applicant has available funds to support their studies in Canada. Moreover, as explained in Mohammadhosseini, documents showing property ownership, without rental income or transaction records, cannot be used to prove financial stability.
[27] Considering these factors, I find that the Officer’s determination regarding the insufficiency of the Applicant’s financial documentation was reasonable and consistent with the jurisprudence of this Court.
[28] While the financial sufficiency finding alone is dispositive of this application, I will briefly address two of the Applicant’s additional submissions.
[29] The Applicant asserts that the Officer’s conclusion on insufficient family ties is unreasonable, given the evidence of the Applicant’s common-law relationship in Iran. I am of the view that the Officer’s acknowledgment of the Applicant’s common-law relationship does not preclude a reasonable determination that this relationship, absent other strong ties, such as dependents or extensive family connections, was insufficient to establish a strong likelihood of return. There is no indication that the Officer engaged in “stereotyping”
of family ties emanating from common-law relationships, as alleged by the Applicant.
[30] The Applicant also asserts that the Officer erred in saying that no CAQ was provided, when it clearly was. I accept that this was an error on the Officer’s part; however, it seems to have played no role in the ultimate decision and is therefore not material.
[31] In conclusion, the record does not support a finding of procedural unfairness or unreasonableness in the Officer’s decision to deny the Applicant’s study permit application. The Applicant’s claim that the Officer’s approach amounted to an implicit credibility finding is not persuasive. The Officer’s concerns were strictly limited to the sufficiency of the financial documentation, not its authenticity or credibility. As such, the refusal decision attracts a low level of procedural fairness, meaning the Officer was not required to provide the Applicant with an opportunity to address evidentiary deficiencies.
[32] The Officer’s decision on the merits is reasonable and aligned with applicable legal standards and jurisprudence. While the Applicant’s financial evidence showed a substantial balance at a given moment, it failed to provide the necessary transaction history to demonstrate financial stability over time. The fluctuations in the trustee account further raised legitimate concerns about the continued availability of funds. The Applicant’s property ownership also could not compensate for the shortfall in liquid assets, especially given the gap between available funds and the estimated two-year program expenses. Finally, the Officer’s assessment of the Applicant’s family ties was reasonable given the circumstances, and the error regarding the availability of the CAQ is not material.
[33] This application shall be dismissed. Neither party proposed a question for certification.
Email this Content